[lojban] Re: X1 is X2 by definition.

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 4/15/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> Please not that defining gismu in Lojban is Hard, because Lojban
> tends not to have many words for the same concept, so some concepts
> must be taken as given, and those are generally the gismu.

Yes, but also it is hard because talking about definitions and 
meanings in Lojban is hard. It is not even clear how to talk 
about a meaning, as you hint below.
 
> My Way:
> 
> zo prami se smuni di'e .i xy pi pa ke mutce cinmo nelci xy pi re
> gi'e djica lo nu di'i kansa xy pi re
> 
> Or something like that.  You could put the second half in the x2 of
> se smuni, but it'd be a pain.

{di'e} is a text, so if you wanted a text there you could have
used {lu ... li'u}.  But I don't think a text is a meaning. 

Maybe you meant {la'e di'e}. Then you could have used 
{lo du'u ...} or {lo nu ...} (I think {la'e di'e} is ambiguous 
between those two.) But it is not clear that the meaning of 
{prami} could be an event or a fact either.

Safest would be {tu'a di'e}, "something related to the 
following sentence", but it is hoplessly vague if we are
aiming for precision.

I think what we want to say is something like:

{lo ka ce'u xi pa prami ce'u xi re cu mintu lo ka ce'u xi pa
mutce cinmo nelci ce'u xi re li'o kei lo -definition} "the 
two-place relationship 'x1 loves x2' is the same as the 
two-place relationship 'x1 intensely feels fondness for 
x2 etc.' by definition".

Where "by definition" is the standard by which the two
relationships are the same. But how do we say 
"by definition"? Perhaps {mintu fi lo se valsi}, "they are
the same by word meaning"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes